Appeal 6004802

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA.(b) of the GPDO grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of the construction of one additional storey, where the existing dwellinghouse consists of one storey, immediately above the topmost storey of the dwellinghouse, together with any engineering operations reasonably necessary for the purpose of that construction. This is subject to various limitations and conditions that are set out in paragraphs AA.1. and AA.2.

Development permitted by Class AA is subject to, amongst others, the conditions in paragraphs AA.2.(3)(a)(i) and AA.2.(3)(a)(ii) of the GPDO, which requires the developer to seek prior approval from the local planning authority as to the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises including overlooking, privacy and the loss of light; and external appearance of the enlarged dwellinghouse, including the design and architectural features of (aa) the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse, and (bb) any side elevation of the dwellinghouse that fronts a highway.

The procedure in paragraph AA.3.(3) states that the local planning authority may refuse an application where, in its opinion (a) the proposed development does not comply with, or (b) the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with, any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in paragraphs AA.1. and AA.2.

The Council determined that the appeal proposal would not meet the limitation in [name].1.(c) which states that development is not permitted by Class AA if, the dwellinghouse was constructed before 1st July 1948 or after 28th October 2018.

In assessing the effect of the appeal proposal on the amenity of any adjoining premises and the external appearance of the building, the Council has concluded that even if the appeal proposal was permitted development, it would not comply with the conditions in AA.2.(3)(a)(i) and AA.2.(3)(a)(ii), and it refused prior approval.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would constitute permitted development with particular regard to the date of the construction of the dwellinghouse in relation to the limitation in [name].1.(c), and, if it would constitute permitted development, its impact on: • the external appearance of the building, and • the amenity of any adjoining premises, with particular regard to the outlook of the occupants of Number 63 [site address] .

The earliest planning record held by the Council for the appeal property is a planning application for a private garage from July 1949. A copy is not before me, but the Council has advised that the drawings show the appeal dwelling as existing at that time. On that basis the appeal dwelling was constructed before July 1949.

The appellant has submitted a copy of a conveyance dated 30 August 1947 for Freehold land situate in [site address] [site address] . It does not include any drawings of the land to which it relates but refers to plots having a frontage to [site address] . The appellant considers that the conveyance confirms land ownership but provides no evidence that the appeal dwelling was complete on that date. This has not been disputed by the Council, who did not submit an appeal statement in response to the appellant’s grounds of appeal. To my mind, it seems likely that the dwelling was constructed after the conveyance of the land.

The appellant has submitted a [name] dated 6 November 1947, for the freehold property in course of erection in [site address] [site address] . This also contains a signed statement with a handwritten date of 20 December 1955, which appears to acknowledge receipt of all moneys intended to be received by the mortgage deed. The appellant considers that the words on the deed “in course of erection” confirms that the dwelling was not complete at the time of the mortgage being entered into. This has not been disputed by the Council.

Just over 2 months had elapsed between the date of the conveyance and the date of the mortgage. There is nothing before me to indicate how close the dwelling was to being constructed on 6 November 1947. To my mind it would be reasonable to deduce that obtaining a mortgage to finance the purchase of land and/or building materials and labour would have been necessary either before construction had begun or during the very early stages of construction.

The appellant contends that a bungalow of this size would typically take longer than 9 months to construct in normal conditions. They contend that shortages in construction materials and labour after the second world war, together with the severe winter of 1947-1948, would have resulted in the construction of the appeal dwelling taking longer than average. This has not been disputed by the Council.

On the evidence before me, the appellant has built a credible picture to indicate that construction of the appeal dwelling, which could have begun towards the end of 1947 given the conveyance date and mortgage date, would likely have been prolonged by severe winter weather and shortages of construction materials and labour. This has not been disputed by the Council. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the appeal dwelling was completed after 1st July 1948.

Taking all the above into account and based on the evidence before me, the appellant has demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the appeal dwelling was constructed after 1st July 1948 and before 28th October 2018. It would therefore comply with the restriction in [name].1.(c).

It is not a matter of dispute between the main parties that the proposal complies with all other limitations and restrictions in [name].1. of Class AA of the GPDO. On the evidence before me, I have no reason to reach a different view. I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would be permitted development subject to the prior approval matters in Class AA, and therefore my attention turns to those disputed matters.

[site address] is a long road within a residential part of the settlement. It is lined on both sides by houses and bungalows of different designs that are set on common building lines. The road rises steeply up the hillside from south to north, with the gradient being steepest along the section leading up to and including the appeal site. In views towards the north, the rows of buildings tend to climb the hillside, with their roof ridge levels stepping upward with the gradient. In views looking south, the rows of buildings tend to cascade down the hillside, with long distance views across lower ground to the south, including the estuary, being obtainable over their roofs.

The appeal bungalow is located on the upper part of [site address] , not far from its highest point and just to the north of [address]. This is significant because the rising gradient of the road coincides with a distinct change in building heights in the area where it is joined by [address]. The point of this change is marked by the houses at Numbers 56 and 59/59A, on opposite sides of [site address] . To the south of the junction, [site address] is predominantly lined with two-storey houses. In contrast, the northern section is mainly characterised by single-storey bungalows, some of which feature roof dormers.

The appeal bungalow has low height outer walls and a hipped roof. It stands within a row of bungalows that are broadly similar in size, height and proportions. Their roof levels step upward with the gradient, with each roof set higher than the last. Together with the bungalows on the opposite side of the road that also step upwards with the gradient, the rows of bungalows to the north of [address] create a distinctive street scene. The appeal bungalow is a positive contributor to that street scene. It reinforces the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed extension would add significant high-level bulk above the bungalow’s walls, giving it the proportions, scale and height of a 2 storey house. In its proposed extended form, the height and massing of the appeal building would have an imposing presence in street level views. Seen in the context of the bungalows in the same row and those opposite, it would loom large and visibly dominant above those bungalows, being not only higher than the roof line of Number 67, but considerably higher than Number 63. It would result in an uncommonly abrupt and jarring transition of roof eaves and ridge levels within the row. Depending upon the viewing angle, it would erode the characteristic upward step of roofs up the hillside or their cascade downwards.

In its proposed extended form, the appeal dwelling would be comparable to the scale, proportions and design of several other houses towards the south that occupy land at a lower level. The appellant has referred to several examples of those houses which I saw at my visit. However, the nearest of which, Number 56, is set further to the south and closer to other houses and larger dormer bungalows with tall roofs. When seen in its true context of the row of bungalows, none of those houses would absorb the dominance of the elevated massing of the appeal extension. They do not justify the harm that it would cause to the character and appearance of the area.

For those reasons the proposed extension would be an incongruous addition to the host property that would contrast harmfully with the existing bungalows in the rows. Therefore, and so far as material to this appeal, it would conflict with Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan, Adopted 1998, which requires development to be of a high quality, appropriate to its setting and not harmful to the character of its surroundings. It would also conflict with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires development to, amongst others, be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment. Outlook of the occupants of Number 63

The height and elevated massing of the proposed extension would be clearly visible from the rear garden of Number 63, which wraps around its side and rear walls. In views from the part of the garden of Number 63 just behind its garage and alongside its flank wall, the height and elevated massing of the proposed extension would, given the significant differences in land levels, loom large above the boundary.

However, as the proposed extension would be contained above the principal core of the appeal building, it would not extend behind the rear elevation of Number 63. Therefore, it would avoid being directly alongside the larger part of the rear garden of Number 63, which would be the most valued from an amenity perspective. That part of the garden is relatively wide and closely associated with its rear wall. Whilst it includes the conservatory, it is set away from the boundary with the appeal site.

Consequently, as the proposed extension would not have an enclosing effect on that part of the garden of Number 63, it would not have a dominant or overbearing effect on the outlook of its occupants. Therefore, it would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of Number 63. So far as material to this appeal, it would be consistent with the guidance in section RDG3 of the Castle Point Borough Council Residential Design Guidance (2013) insofar as development which would result in excessive overshadowing or dominance to any elevation of an adjoining property will be refused.

Insofar as material to the prior approval matters, there would be no conflict with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which amongst others requires planning decisions to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO anticipates that the appearances of buildings would change as a result of the planning permission it has granted. However, this does not mean that all such schemes will be acceptable. The prior approval process ensures the effects of a particular proposal are assessed on a site and context specific basis. Having done so in this appeal, the proposal’s harm to the character and appearance of the area is determinative in this instance.

In accordance with paragraph AA.3.(12)(a) I have taken into account the representations made by interested parties. Where not addressed above, they are addressed by the Council Officer’s report. None of the representations made has altered the outcome of this appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on the external appearance of the building, and the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore fail to comply with condition AA.2.(3)(a)(ii) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO and [name] should therefore be refused. It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.